jack wrote:The judge looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based on it , as happened in the case versus the McCanns. This shows that there is not a conspiracy against Amaral, as some have suggested. He's just lost 2 out of the 3 cases hes been involved in based purely on the evidence.

You're ill-informed, I'm afraid.The cases you mentioned have been appealed. When the appeals run out (as in the Cipriano case) then you can say he lost them.And by the way, following your somewhat twisted logic, it's actually 2 out of 5 as he was the coordinator of the Cipriano case and the loony lawyer managed to get Leonor's conviction maintained (instead of overturned) and see an appeal for a new trial turned down. Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Ohhhh! I think I might be psychic! I have this feeling that we might be about to witness an influx of trolls. We have Jack here and on the guest forum, we've had someone say they'd join if the banning of someone were to be confirmed. Get ready folks, just in case they're coming out from under that bridge.

jack wrote:The judge looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based on it , as happened in the case versus the McCanns. This shows that there is not a conspiracy against Amaral, as some have suggested. He's just lost 2 out of the 3 cases hes been involved in based purely on the evidence.

You're ill-informed, I'm afraid.The cases you mentioned have been appealed. When the appeals run out (as in the Cipriano case) then you can say he lost them.And by the way, following your somewhat twisted logic, it's actually 2 out of 5 as he was the coordinator of the Cipriano case and the loony lawyer managed to get Leonor's conviction maintained (instead of overturned) and see an appeal for a new trial turned down. Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Ohhhh! I think I might be psychic! I have this feeling that we might be about to witness an influx of trolls. We have Jack here and on the guest forum, we've had someone say they'd join if the banning of someone were to be confirmed. Get ready folks, just in case they're coming out from under that bridge.

jack wrote:The judge looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based on it , as happened in the case versus the McCanns. This shows that there is not a conspiracy against Amaral, as some have suggested. He's just lost 2 out of the 3 cases hes been involved in based purely on the evidence.

You're ill-informed, I'm afraid.The cases you mentioned have been appealed. When the appeals run out (as in the Cipriano case) then you can say he lost them.And by the way, following your somewhat twisted logic, it's actually 2 out of 5 as he was the coordinator of the Cipriano case and the loony lawyer managed to get Leonor's conviction maintained (instead of overturned) and see an appeal for a new trial turned down. Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Ohhhh! I think I might be psychic! I have this feeling that we might be about to witness an influx of trolls. We have Jack here and on the guest forum, we've had someone say they'd join if the banning of someone were to be confirmed. Get ready folks, just in case they're coming out from under that bridge.

Oh my, have you thought about opening a psychic business in Madeira?

Madeira sounds like a nice place, but i think I might offer my services to one of the tabloids as Mystic Mog!

jack wrote:The judge looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based on it , as happened in the case versus the McCanns. This shows that there is not a conspiracy against Amaral, as some have suggested. He's just lost 2 out of the 3 cases hes been involved in based purely on the evidence.

You're ill-informed, I'm afraid.The cases you mentioned have been appealed. When the appeals run out (as in the Cipriano case) then you can say he lost them.And by the way, following your somewhat twisted logic, it's actually 2 out of 5 as he was the coordinator of the Cipriano case and the loony lawyer managed to get Leonor's conviction maintained (instead of overturned) and see an appeal for a new trial turned down. Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Ohhhh! I think I might be psychic! I have this feeling that we might be about to witness an influx of trolls. We have Jack here and on the guest forum, we've had someone say they'd join if the banning of someone were to be confirmed. Get ready folks, just in case they're coming out from under that bridge.

Oh my, have you thought about opening a psychic business in Madeira?

Madeira sounds like a nice place, but i think I might offer my services to one of the tabloids as Mystic Mog!

jack wrote:The judge looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based on it , as happened in the case versus the McCanns. This shows that there is not a conspiracy against Amaral, as some have suggested. He's just lost 2 out of the 3 cases hes been involved in based purely on the evidence.

You're ill-informed, I'm afraid.The cases you mentioned have been appealed. When the appeals run out (as in the Cipriano case) then you can say he lost them.And by the way, following your somewhat twisted logic, it's actually 2 out of 5 as he was the coordinator of the Cipriano case and the loony lawyer managed to get Leonor's conviction maintained (instead of overturned) and see an appeal for a new trial turned down. Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Seems like I hit a raw nerve . Actually I can say he lost two cases , fact at present, unless of course you cannot stand freedom of speech.

Something will have to be done now! What next? I know! The Pope is visiting an airport in the midlands. The McCanns could book a front row seat to see their friend Benedict and make sure the press are right beside them!

jack wrote:The judge looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based on it , as happened in the case versus the McCanns. This shows that there is not a conspiracy against Amaral, as some have suggested. He's just lost 2 out of the 3 cases hes been involved in based purely on the evidence.

You're ill-informed, I'm afraid.The cases you mentioned have been appealed. When the appeals run out (as in the Cipriano case) then you can say he lost them.And by the way, following your somewhat twisted logic, it's actually 2 out of 5 as he was the coordinator of the Cipriano case and the loony lawyer managed to get Leonor's conviction maintained (instead of overturned) and see an appeal for a new trial turned down. Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Seems like I hit a raw nerve . Actually I can say he lost two cases , fact at present, unless of course you cannot stand freedom of speech.

Hit a raw nerve by being misinformed? No. We're used to people turning up with their misinformation.

jack wrote:The judge looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based on it , as happened in the case versus the McCanns. This shows that there is not a conspiracy against Amaral, as some have suggested. He's just lost 2 out of the 3 cases hes been involved in based purely on the evidence.

jack wrote:The judge looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based on it , as happened in the case versus the McCanns. This shows that there is not a conspiracy against Amaral, as some have suggested. He's just lost 2 out of the 3 cases hes been involved in based purely on the evidence.

You're ill-informed, I'm afraid.The cases you mentioned have been appealed. When the appeals run out (as in the Cipriano case) then you can say he lost them.And by the way, following your somewhat twisted logic, it's actually 2 out of 5 as he was the coordinator of the Cipriano case and the loony lawyer managed to get Leonor's conviction maintained (instead of overturned) and see an appeal for a new trial turned down. Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Seems like I hit a raw nerve . Actually I can say he lost two cases , fact at present, unless of course you cannot stand freedom of speech.

Not at all.I didn't mean to embarrass you, but the truth is that you are ignorant regarding the law in this country. If there is an appeal (by any of the parts) the case starts all over again. For instance, when Leonor Cipriano was convicted for the first time of murdering her daughter, her lawyer appealed immediately. At that time, calling her a convicted murderer was libellous, because she had appealed the case. Only after the appeals ran out could we call her a convicted child killer, which is what she actually is. Next time, do some research first.As for freedom of speech, I suspect you have no idea what that means. As a Portuguese citizen, I still remember.Stay well.